Innocence commissions

Due process remedies and protection for the innocent

Robert Schehr, Jamie Sears

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

2 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Currently the American criminal justice system has no institutional mechanism to evaluate the conviction of an innocent person. An innocence commission would fill this gap. The commission would automatically review any acknowledged case of wrongful conviction, whether the conviction was reversed on post-conviction DNA tests, or through development of new evidence of innocence. Upon review of these cases, the commission would recommend remedies to prevent such miscarriages of justice from happening again. This paper commences with a review of the primary areas of wrongful conviction, followed by recommendations made with respect to the substantive components constituting innocence commissions. To empirically demonstrate the fiscal soundness of creating an innocence commission, data was gathered pertaining to the state of Arizona. Statements from criminal justice professionals and politicians in support of innocence commissions conclude our discussion.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)181-209
Number of pages29
JournalCritical Criminology
Volume13
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 2005

Fingerprint

remedies
justice
politician
human being
evidence

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Law

Cite this

Innocence commissions : Due process remedies and protection for the innocent. / Schehr, Robert; Sears, Jamie.

In: Critical Criminology, Vol. 13, No. 2, 01.2005, p. 181-209.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{ed8b9b7d8a6a4976b535f9e98e9f7596,
title = "Innocence commissions: Due process remedies and protection for the innocent",
abstract = "Currently the American criminal justice system has no institutional mechanism to evaluate the conviction of an innocent person. An innocence commission would fill this gap. The commission would automatically review any acknowledged case of wrongful conviction, whether the conviction was reversed on post-conviction DNA tests, or through development of new evidence of innocence. Upon review of these cases, the commission would recommend remedies to prevent such miscarriages of justice from happening again. This paper commences with a review of the primary areas of wrongful conviction, followed by recommendations made with respect to the substantive components constituting innocence commissions. To empirically demonstrate the fiscal soundness of creating an innocence commission, data was gathered pertaining to the state of Arizona. Statements from criminal justice professionals and politicians in support of innocence commissions conclude our discussion.",
author = "Robert Schehr and Jamie Sears",
year = "2005",
month = "1",
doi = "10.1007/s10612-005-4798-x",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "13",
pages = "181--209",
journal = "Critical Criminology",
issn = "1205-8629",
publisher = "Springer Netherlands",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Innocence commissions

T2 - Due process remedies and protection for the innocent

AU - Schehr, Robert

AU - Sears, Jamie

PY - 2005/1

Y1 - 2005/1

N2 - Currently the American criminal justice system has no institutional mechanism to evaluate the conviction of an innocent person. An innocence commission would fill this gap. The commission would automatically review any acknowledged case of wrongful conviction, whether the conviction was reversed on post-conviction DNA tests, or through development of new evidence of innocence. Upon review of these cases, the commission would recommend remedies to prevent such miscarriages of justice from happening again. This paper commences with a review of the primary areas of wrongful conviction, followed by recommendations made with respect to the substantive components constituting innocence commissions. To empirically demonstrate the fiscal soundness of creating an innocence commission, data was gathered pertaining to the state of Arizona. Statements from criminal justice professionals and politicians in support of innocence commissions conclude our discussion.

AB - Currently the American criminal justice system has no institutional mechanism to evaluate the conviction of an innocent person. An innocence commission would fill this gap. The commission would automatically review any acknowledged case of wrongful conviction, whether the conviction was reversed on post-conviction DNA tests, or through development of new evidence of innocence. Upon review of these cases, the commission would recommend remedies to prevent such miscarriages of justice from happening again. This paper commences with a review of the primary areas of wrongful conviction, followed by recommendations made with respect to the substantive components constituting innocence commissions. To empirically demonstrate the fiscal soundness of creating an innocence commission, data was gathered pertaining to the state of Arizona. Statements from criminal justice professionals and politicians in support of innocence commissions conclude our discussion.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=24944461012&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=24944461012&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s10612-005-4798-x

DO - 10.1007/s10612-005-4798-x

M3 - Article

VL - 13

SP - 181

EP - 209

JO - Critical Criminology

JF - Critical Criminology

SN - 1205-8629

IS - 2

ER -